Res Eng Des (1992) 4:115-130

Research in Engineering Design

Theory, Applications,and Concurrent Engineering 1992Springer-VerlagNew York Inc.

Cooperation in Aircraft Design

A l a n H . B o n d 1'* a n d R i c h a r d J. Ricci
~Manufacturing Engineering Program, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA; and 2Automation Systems, Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company, Burbank, California, USA

Abstract. We describe how aircraft are designed in a large organization. We discuss the different phases of design and interaction with the customer. We then describe the models used by each specialist department and the interactions among departments during the design process. We observe that the main design choices are refinement operations on the design. We then briefly describe how the negotiation process is controlled by an organizationally agreed sequence of commitment steps. We then describe negotiation at higher levels in the organization. What decisions are made, the compromises worked out, and the effect of these higher-level commitments on the design process. We conclude that: (I) aircraft design proceeds by the cooperation of specialists (specialist teams or departments); (2) each specialist has its own model of the design, and may use several different models or partial models for different purposes; (3) specialists have limited ability to understand each other's models. They communicate using a shared vocabulary, but not necessarily.shared technical knowledge; (4) design proceeds by successive refinement of the models, which are coordinated and updated together; (5) the design decisions, which are acts of commitment and model refinement, are negotiated by the specialists among themselves; (6) one way this negotiation process is organized and controlled is by the use of commitment steps; (7) negotiations occur at higher levels in the organization, resulting in commitments which greatly influence and constrain the design process and its organization, and which have the greatest effect on the cost of the product.

e.g., [I] and [2]), we know of very little previous work that has reported on existing collaborative design in manufacturing organizations. We perceive the problem as to first describe collaborative design, then to manage it (i.e., to control action and allocate resources so as to optimize resource use, subject to real-time requirements). As part of this, we can then determine how to support this activity, by changes in procedure, culture, and computer support.

1.2

Separate Models

Introduction

t.i

The Problem o f Collaborative Design

Whereas there is some existing published research on concurrent design requirements and on computer systems for the support of concurrent design (see,
Offprint requests: 4173C Engineering 1, Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 900241596, USA

An illustrative example arises in our work on collaboration in wing section design. H e r e a stress engineer and a producibility designer interact using a diagram on a CAD system. The stress engineer needs a solution which transmits loads well through the structure, and the designer needs a structure that is easy to fabricate, using, for example, an automatic riveting machine. The criteria used b y each specialist are private to them in that they are complex and concerned with their particular technologies. In the case of the collaboration of a producibility designer and a stress engineer, the producibility designer is concerned with arranging forms and fasteners so that the design realizes (or " s i z e s " ) a given layout and function, and is producible (i.e., manufacturable on the machines currently available using techniques and tooling currently in use in the organization). His description concerns the use o f the part, and its production. The producibility engineer tries to make joints which are straight, and accessible with known riveting gun types. He also needs to keep rivet spacing constant, or at least to a small number or different rivet spacings, in order to limit tooling set-up cost. The stress engineer is c o n c e r n e d with arrangements such that the loads carried in the elements are well formed, in that internal load is transmitted throughout the structure, which satisfies a given external load specification. His description concerns

116

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

loads, stresses, transmission, and techniques for finding them. The stress engineer works privately with a finite element model which calculates load patterns satisfying differential equations derived from physical principles. These must match the load transmission properties of the sized geometry. The common language of their collaboration is simply a drawing, that is, geometric elements and their relations; in addition, indications of what is right or wrong with a given geometry, and possibly suggested changes in the geometry. In aircraft design, there are many other specialists, each with their own technology and language. For example, there are aerodynamicists who use surface models and flow-field equations; there are maintainability engineers concerned with access, disassembly, and replacement; there are hydraulic engineers; and thermodynamic experts. They do not understand each other's specializations, but they have to collaborate to produce a single design acceptable to all. The aim of collaboration is to produce a design which is agreed to by each agent. This means that each agent has a justification of the design that he is satisfied with. In organizational practice, it is very important to validate designs. Manufacturing is very much concerned with validation, specification, and standardization, as organizational mechanisms. The design must satisfy' contractual requirements and must also meet safety and other legal and government-dictated requirements.

PHASE

MAIN DECISIONS I~equh'eluent s Spex:itic~t&~ns

MAIN TECHNOLOGIES

~ONCEPT DESIGN Fuel/Stores/Engine ()ug~l,o,rd Sy~telnx hdm~rd Profile Design Str~c~,,r~'~ (Stre~/L~ad,s ~, VCeights Aeronlechanic~ Mission AnMysis

PRELIMINARY DESIGN Fuel/Stllres/Engines Flight Station/Envirmunent Ctm~rots/Hydraulics Primary Stnu:turM Joints ElectricM/B[ack Boxes Detailed Inboard Profile Design Al~rodyl~ulics Structures (Stress/Loads] Weighg~ Al~romechal~ics Tllermodyn~mii:s RMar Imagiug I Propulsion R, M aud S

PRODUCTION

DESIGN

Same as gbow~ except De~ailed parts released for pr(ld u(C.ion Dimenslmts with all parts

Fig. 1. Design phases, main decisions, and main technologies involved.

finement. Section 5 lays out a typical complete scheme of design goals and steps in the design of aircraft to prototype stage. Section 6 briefly raises the issue of higher level negotiation. By higher level, we mean (1) at a higher level of abstraction, such as policies for choice of materials, and also (2) concerned with organization and support of the design process. Section 7 summarizes and concludes.

Specifying the Product

1.3 Conflict
We shall ignore any problems of conflict and deception in collaboration, and assume benign, nonantagonistic collaboration. This is, in any case, what happens in organizations. At a given organizational level, one department can assume that the information given by other departments is "correct." It is not held responsible for inaccuracies or errors of judgment of other departments. Problems of competence and conflict of interest among departments are usually assumed to be dealt with at higher organizational levels.

2.I

Phases of Design

1.4 Outline of This Paper

In Section 2, we discuss how the collaborative product design process is initiated by specification with the customer. Sections 3 and 4 describe the different specialists involved in aircraft design, the models they use, and their interactions. Section 4.3 draws conclusions on the overall structure of the collaborative design process. Section 4.4 discusses model re-

The design of an aircraft usually has three main distinguishable phases, Concept Design, Preliminary Design, and Production Design. The main decisions made in each phase and the main departments involved in each phase are listed in Fig. 1. The general idea of these phases is in relation to the customer, the determination of feasibility, and timing and cost estimates. Originally, a concept design was sufficient to allow a commitment of resources by the customer. A proof of concept is that a viable product can be produced to perform the mission. "Based on this specification, we are convinced that we can achieve this design at this cost." As airplanes became more expensive and their introduction also involved major technological and production process investment, the negotiation with the customer became more protracted. Preliminary design involves a major detailed design, perhaps taking 50 people and six months to complete, and costing several million dollars. Another approach is to design to the point of producing a prototype plane. This is

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

117

sometimes called a "demonstrator" or "valuation" project by the Department of Defense (DOD). The specification of the mission may be generated by a military customer and given in a request for proposal. For commercial customers, an unsolicited proposal may be made, based on a survey of industry needs made by the airplane company. A commitment (e.g., to buy 50 planes if they meet this specification) can sometimes be obtained. From the specification, a concept design is done and submitted to the customer, from which an award may be made for the next step. The next step is usually not a full preliminary design, but a design to the level of a paper prototype. This is again submitted to the customer, who makes a further award, usually to more than one contractor in competition, to produce an actual prototype. This is a preliminary design of the production version. It results in a physical "demonstrator" (i.e., an actual plane that performs to the specification, but which is "hand made"), as well as many other aspects of the design, including: 1. Demonstration that the company has sufficient "know how" to produce the planes. 2. Demonstration that key types of people are available. 3. Demonstration that the plane can be made within schedule. 4. Demonstration that the plane is maintainable. If a production contract is then awarded, since this is often 2--3 years later, a redesign is done to take into account new technological advances, to give a production design, and to manufacture a given number of planes.

2.3 High-Level Analysis and Synthesis

A small team of concept designers does the first-cut analysis of the possibilities. Early key decisions are: I. Major manufacturability choices. Material policy Fastening policy--types of fastener, whether to use automatic fastening machines, whether to use sealant Sizes of parts Fly by wire or not 2. Structural design policy. 3. Major items of supportability. Built-in test equipment Major spares versus repairable--rudders, elevators, landing gear, doors, etc. These decisions are more important than exact adherence to schedules. An attempt is made to make a "level playing field" for the design by estimating the three main aspects of the design all into dollar figures: DESIGN--weight, strength; MANUFACTURING--man-hours, fixed assets; SUPPORT--man-hours, spares. The team determines: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Overall size, weight, and power. Basic spatial style and shape or approach. Basic materials and processes. Basic structural philosophy. From the set of missions, a set of scenarios is developed. These determine the number of times a stress is applied and allow fatigue measures to be developed.

2.2

Customer Specification

2.4

The Initial Cartoon

The customer specification contains the following types of information: 1. Stores (i.e., cargo) weight, size. There may be 20 or 30 different types of stores to be carried at any one time. 2. At this stage, a description of a set of missions, which includes speed regime, distance, time in air, and payloads. 3. Extreme performance conditions, speeds, accelerations, etc. 4. Volume. 5. Performance characteristics, maneuvrability, fuel efficiency. 6. Target cost, profit, cost/effective design.

The designer takes the output from the team, and the customer specification, and produces an initial cartoon. The cartoon contains the following types of information: 1. Location of major systems/components. 2. Location of major structural members (structural arrangement drawing). 3. Planform. 4. Cross-section of various critical sections; more specifically: 1. Basic geometry. 2. Size information. 3. Basic location of main systems such as fuel, stores, landing gear, flight station, and engine(s).

118

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

ACES 11 EJECTIONSEAT

FWD AVIONICS BAY

FUSELAGE FUEL TANKS

WING FUEL TANK P~W CCD,II78

APU

AFT
-1.]2 Ai

~,BZ

,.

~i'

>,-.-'

~_,//q-~J
20MM GUN

\ ,

FWD WEAPONS

ADVANCED FWO AVIONICSBAY F ~ ~

ENGINE FEED TANKS

AFT AVIONICS F BAY ~ B

r "D

AAM

L.A
RADAR ANTENNA AMAD FWD AIR RECEPTACLE VECTORED THRUST NOZZLE

WEAPONS BAY

REFUELING

Fig. 2. Surfacedefinitionof initial cartoon given as three-viewdrawing.

4. 5. 6. 7.

Basic location of electronics. Wing cross-sections. Number and location of engines. Basic radar configuration.

eral will be abstraction, and will contain a lot of nongeometric information.

3.1

Designer

The designer gives the cartoon its first main geometric representation as a three-view drawing, where the cross-sections at critical sections are developed, as given in Fig. 2.

The main taks of the design department is the development of three-view drawings, with preliminary inboard profile. This contains: Location of major systems/components. Location of major structural members (structural arrangement drawing). Planform. Cross-sections at various critical sections. The main task is to develop, update, and maintain spatial arrangements and geometry.

Different Models for Different Specialists

The set of specialists departments involved in each design phase was shown in Fig. 1. In this section, we discuss the models used by each department in each phase. Each specialist department constructs, from the cartoon, its own specialized model. A model will usually have a geometric representation, but in gen-

3.2 Aerodynamics
The main question being answered by aerodynamics is "Will it fly?" More specifically, estimates of the flight characteristics of the design so far.

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

119

In the concept design phase, this model is a 2D plan (planform) with minor allowances for airfoil (e.g., angle of attack of wings) and rough approximations of cross-section area progression. The main outputs are lift/drag profiles and efficiency assessments. This gives more exact fuel estimates, wing area, and wing sweep angle. In the preliminary design phase, more detailed models are used. Aerodynamic models consist of a considerable amount of vehicle description, up to and including some inlet detail and wind-tunnel models: 3D surface models. Some 3D flow models (simplified). Sophisticated cross-sectional area progression (for wave drag).

including all primary load-carrying members and many of the secondary load carying members. Significant study done on both critical and secondary joint areas (not to rivet level). Significant amount of detailed structural analysis done on critical members, includes crippling, buckling, bending analysis (very local analysis). In the production phase, detailed individual stress analyses are performed for all important substructures throughout the aircraft.

3.4

Weights

The weights department is concerned with the static weight distribution. Their model contains the following types of information: A lumped model with point masses and moments of inertia. A representation of the 1 g loading configuration (i.e., just to lift off the ground). The center of gravity (cg). The center of lift (provided by aerodynamics). In the concept design phase, the lumped masses and moments of inertia represent the main components of the vehicle. The model is used to generate rough 1 g loading for structural applied loads. Many of these numbers are based upon phenomenological formulae obtained empirically. The main outputs are the balance (cg), and the total weight. In the preliminary design phase: Significant detailed weight calculations for 1 g loading. Major vendor part information is used. Exact x,y,z cg locations are used where possible. Total weight calculations become more realistic and critical, as to meet performance requirements.

A quadpan model uses a mesh of 3D surface elements, and a full 3D finite element model is eventually used.

3.3 Structures
The structures department is concerned with the strength and structural integrity of the aircraft under all required conditions of use. The structures model is a 3D finite element model is a lumped model (e.g., 2-3 lumped stringers represent 20 actual stringers, 200 degrees of freedom represent 5000 degrees of actual freedom, parameters are lumped) has abstract structural members and abstract plates. In the concept design phase, it is a fairly sparse model, used primarily for rough sizing of main loadcarrying members. Main critical joints are defined, and main load paths are found. The main outputs generated are required cross-sectional areas of structural members, and their moments of inertia. The values of loads in each member are found. From these, stresses in each member can be easily determined. The loads transmitted through each joint are also found. In preliminary design phase, a model is eventually developed (called a full " b o n e s " drawing), which represents each actual structural member by a modeled structural member: Much more sophisticated external loading models, including a significant set of flight conditions. Much more detailed structural "bones" model,

3.5 Aeromechanics
Aeromechanics are concerned with the dynamic response of the system under given excitation regimes. The model: is an inertia model is generally simpler than a structures model is a stick diagram with lumped masses and stiffnesses. It is used to generate nodal vibration relationships and vehicle stability characteristics. The outputs contain vibration amplitudes throughout the vehicle for given flight conditions which are used as multipliers for inertial effects on applied structural loads. In the concept design phase, a simplified massstiffness stick model representing the vehicle is used

120

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

to generate nodal vibration relationships and vehicle stability characteristics. In the preliminary design phase: A significantly enhanced mass-stiffness stick model is used to determine stability. More detailed analysis of vibration/stability problems relating to major components (i.e., engine and wings) is carried out.

minor components, such as hydraulic pumps, are included large attention is paid to fitting working mechanisms within volume constraints and structural aspects are studied and determined (sizing, life cycle, etc.).

3.10 Manufacturability
Manufacturing specialists are involved already at the concept level, as described in Section 2.3. Manufacturing specialists do not have a separate model, but criticize the main design model. In the preliminary design phase, the main criticisms concern whether the design could be built in the given fabrication shops. Considerations include material choices and whether special fabrication processes or techniques would be involved. During the last phase of prototype design, they are involved in all the detailed specifications of parts and assemblies. 1. Correct specifications for manufacturing have to be generated. 2. Assignments of manufacturing processes have to be determined. These have to satisfy manufacturability criteria. 3. Detailed assembly processes have to be determined to ensure that assemblies can actually be assembled. 4. Detailed cost factors are determined at the part level. Thus, in this last phase, there is a manufacturing model which is the set of process plans for fabricating parts, and the set of assembly plans for assembling them. These plans do not contain detailed tooling designs, but contain an outline tooling design or tooling concept.

3.6 Mission Analysis

Mission analysis is used mainly in the concept design phase. It uses parametric characteristics of vehicle layout to perform sizing iterations to determine optimal geometric shape.

3.7 Radar lmaging

This technology determines detectability by radar. The model consists of panelized data used to represent the vehicle shape. The model must be extremely accurate and dense (number of elements) in order to accurately find true reflectance values.

3.8

Thermodynamic Analysis

This model is concerned with heat absorption, conductance, and emittance throughout the vehicle, and how these affect the structural, environmental, and reliability characteristics of the aircraft. In the concept design phase, it consists of a space model consisting of major components represented as lumped masses as conductors and resistors. In the preliminary design phase, a much more detailed model is used: it contains many components the vehicle is broken into regions and localized systems, such as fuel systems and electrical systems, are studied individually.

3.1t

Quality Assurance

3.9 Mechanism Analysis

The mechanisms of the aircraft consist of the operation of all moving mechanical systems in the vehicle. In the concept design phase, the model: defines moving surfaces models landing gear includes control systems and specifies the motion of the large main members.

Checking is done by QA specialists to criticize designs.

3.12 Reliability, Maintainability, and Supportability

Checking is done by RM&S specialists. They use "lessons learned" feedback from the field in the form of case reports, to criticize designs.

3.13

Cost Estimation and Control

In the preliminary design phase, the model is the same as above except: motion ranges are defined in much greater detail

Cost specialists are involved in all phases. They use analytical models to derive estimated costs from designs so far.

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

121

4 Interactions Among Specialists

In this section, we describe the interactions and interfaces among the different specialists and their models.

community settles into a "make this work" situation.

4.2 Descriptions of Input and Output to Each Specialist 4.2.1 Designer. The designer bases his design primarily on the information obtained from the proposal specifications. From this information and previous experience, concepts, etc., the designer generates a three-view cartoon concept which forms the basis of the first analysis. Thereafter, he/she updates and refines the spatial layouts in interaction with the technology specialists. Input is received from all other departments and the designer's task is to constantly resynthesize a good design. The model used is a set of drawings, on a CAD system, which represent the actual geometry of the aircraft, as it is estimated so far. 4.2.2 Aerodynamics. Input: The aerodynamics specialist will query geometry (2D and/or 3D) for specific geometry points (x,y,z), which will be used to represent the surface shape of the vehicle, and can be used to demonstrate airflow over the surface. Model elements: From input data, a 3D quadrilateral grid of points will be developed to represent the airflow system about the vehicle. Output: Life, drag, and pressure distribution of the vehicle for a given set of flight conditions. From the output, the viability of the vehicle to fulfill the flying requirements will be determined and required changes recommended.

4.1

Informal Overview of Interactions Among Specialists

We can give an overall illustration by briefly describing a typical scenario in a preliminary design environment. At this point in the design, the designer has developed a shape concept with significant detail as far as the location of the vehicle primary systems and vehicle surface components/control surfaces are concerned. A " b o n e s " diagram determining rib stations, fuselage ring stations, major pressure bulkheads, major joints, and major load carrying members has been developed. A typical course of action might be as follows. The aero-engineer, who has already made previous preliminary runs, now creates a more detailed model and runs the more expensive flow codes to get a better feel of the vehicle performance. He comes back with data which indicate the improvements can be made by modifying certain areas of the vehicle shape. The designer examines these suggested changes relative to their effect on the packaging of the vehicle systems and the support structure used to hold these systems in place. The stress engineer examines the designer's changes to the structure needed to fulfill aerodynamic recommendations and runs an upgraded stress finite element model reflecting these changes. The feedback from the FEM analysis is reported to the designer, denoting any trouble areas which may arise. The three organizations will now sit down together, usually in a meeting to discuss variations of the proposed changes which could alleviate problem areas. Compromises will be suggested. All these organizations will then return to their respective disciplines to make further studies on the recommended compromises. These new studies will necessitate further meetings to reconcile continuing problem areas. This iteration process will continue until all parties are satisfied that they can live with the described changes. Throughout this process, time and cost of analysis play an important role as to the depth of analysis actually undertaken and the number of iterations allowed. In the end, these two factors are what closes off further development and the development

4.2.3

Structures. The philosophy behind the structures model is that it is created for two basic reasons:

1. To prove, through analysis, the viability of the design (i.e., will the structure fail to fulfill its strength requirements). 2. To help in the optimization of the design (i.e., reduce weight, reduce cost, reduce complexity, etc.). The level of detail varies as the design proceeds toward greater definition and completion. The reasons for the variation in detail include: 1. Lack of completeness of design. 2. Cost of running analysis. 3. Time required to create and run model.

Input: The structures specialist will query geometry (2D and/or 3D) for specific geometric points

122

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

(x,y,z), which can be used to represent the strength components of the structure. These include load paths, physical locations, type of loads transferred, and strength of load path. Structures will also receive external pressure distribution data from the aerodynamics and loads departments. Model elements: From input data, a "bulk data deck" representing the model is created. This includes:
1. Grid points representing physical locations. 2. Connectivity elements representing the physical structure through which the loads pass. 3. Material properties representing the strength and stiffness characteristics of the material of each component. 4. Structural properties representing the physical shape and size of each component. 5. Applied external loads from aerodynamic/ loads pressure curves.

2. The model is a simpler lumped model representing the basic structure only. It typically ignores major systems and has fewer structural members than other structural models. It uses lumped weights and inertia. 3. Mathematical stimuli are applied to the resulting model to determine system vibration and stability characteristics for each flight condition. This is used to make recommendations on altering the parameters of structures in the wing and fuselage.

4.2.6 Manufacturability. During design, manufacturing specialists relate to the cooperative design process more as checkers with vetoing ability than design drivers. They act to stabilize cost and time. Checking is done by manufacturing specialists to criticize designs. Input: The main design model. Output: Criticisms of the form of vetoing or suggested modifications of given aspects of the design.
During the last phase of prototype design, they are involved more interactively in all the detailed specifications of parts and assemblies. A lot of manufacturability criticism and constraint is actually achieved from the training of central designers in the principles of manufacturability; in addition, there are design handbooks, used for the guidance of designers, which contain manufacturability criteria. Thus, the interaction is via the transfer of knowledge through education.

Output: Internal loads and configuration deflections. From this output, the viability of the configuration is determined, and required changes are recommended. 4.2.4 Weights and loads. The inputs, model and outputs for weights analysis are as follows: Input: The weights model is generated from several sources including the central design layout, empirical data based on existing aircraft and vendor data on included parts/segments of the airplane, such as engines, radar systems, etc. Model elements: The model assigns weights in a lumped model. Output: A gravitational loading distribution which is lumped and/or provides an envelope. In addition, there is a loads group which elaborates the dynamic loading cases. Input: The loads data is a direct result of combining aerodynamically derived pressure distribution data with different speed regimes and flight conditions which impose certain g forces and air forces on the vehicle. Model elements: A lumped model. Output: A set of load cases. 4.2.5 Aeromechanics. The inputs, model, and outputs for aeromechanics analysis are as follows:
1. The aeromechanics model is derived from the components of the three-view created by the designer (determines stiffnesses) and the I g weights developed by the weights group.

4.2.7 Quality assurance. Checking is done by QA specialists to criticize designs. Input: The main design model. Output: Criticisms of the form of vetoing or suggested modifications of given aspects of the design. 4.2.8 Reliability, maintainability, and supportability. Checking is done by RM&S specialists to criticize designs. Input: The main design model. Output: Criticisms of the form of vetoing or suggested modifications of given aspects of the design. 4.2.9 Cost estimation and control. ists are involved in all phases.
Cost special-

Input: The main design model. Model elements: Cost estimates for assemblies.

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

123

i speedregime volume,weight distance,performance

mission specialistmodel

i specification changes specialistmodel modelchanges evaluations suggestions

Ica~oon
Structures "~ biggerwingbox moreribs I, moment A...... s:ctioo~ g

j Aerodynamics moreexact f~el estimate wingarea / sweep angle / geometl]

-o4
e net baiance totalweight Weights
inertia

refinement

1\

refinement

1\

refinement

/\

Fig. 4. T h e process o f coordinated refinement of models.

distribution [ Aeromechanics

4.4.1 Envelope to more detailed geometry. The initial model specifies an approximate volume, which can be an envelope or a bounding cuboid for the refined model. 4.4.2 More exact numerical estimates. As an example, fuel capacity 15,000 gal is a representation of an interval such as 14,000-16,000. A more exact estimate might be 15,500 gal, which might at this level of refinement corresponds to the interval 15,250-15,750. 4.4.3 Single to multiple elements. The mapping from the initial model, which lumps elements into abstract elements, may not be a direct expansion of each element into several more detailed elements. We have depicted a lumped model with four elements being expanded into a more detailed model with 14 elements. We also show that single element expansions have to be merged to produce a refinement, and that additional elements may be added during this process. 4.4.4 Putting in explicit fuel, power, and hydraulic lines. These may have a nonnegligible diameter and other requirements and may need to be considered at a nondetailed level. 4.4.5 SuJface geometry specification. Surfaces are at first approximated by a series of defining curves comprising planar cross-sections and primary longitudinal lines. Finally, these are converted into surface patches in which the areas between the defining curves are mathematically defined. The analysis models represent these surfaces using planar facets connected to x,y,z coordinate data. 4.4.6 Articulation and fastening. A 3D form will at first exist in a simplified shape, and will then be refined, and optimized for manufacture, by articulating it into an assembly of component parts. This may

Final Conceptual Design

Fig. 3. Conceptual design.

Output: Cost estimates for given aspects of the design. 4.3 Overall Structure of the Design Process

4.3.1 Interacting specialists. During conceptual design, the initial cartoon is refined up to the point of a fairly detailed layout. During this process, the specialized models are constructed in their initial forms, and then also refined so as to reflect and to incorporate the changes and progression of the central design. This is diagrammed in Fig. 3. Further, the sets of experts involved gradually change as the design proceeds. Some leave and some join the dance. 4.3.2 Coordinated refinement of models. The process of refinement, where each specialist refines his model, and works to keep his model up to date with the central model, is depicted in Fig. 4. This also shows the input of specification changes, and their distribution to the relevant specialists. 4.4 Model Refinement

A model may be changed to correct it, but most of the changes are in the refinement of the model. We give some examples of refinement:

124

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

Customer Project management D~ign ~nd sys%ems

Generate requirements. Prom customer requirements and advanced technology assessment, coordinate configuration concept, Generate ba~e|inedrawings, general arrangement, inboard profile (support tool - CADAM} Wing proportions + (~) W i g chord lengtb/sutface area. (b) thickness/chord tength~ (c) Aspec~ Ratio. Empennage size, Thrust to weight r~tio T/W. Engine selection~ ta,nge of cycle parameters. Engine installation criteria. Approx gross weight. Approx empty weight. Evaluate configuratiou for {I) toad paths for low cost light weight structures, and (2) reasonable and consistent design parameters, Provide criteria guidelines. Participate in design: 11) evaluation for loads (2) aeroelastic and flutter effects (support tool - loads programs),

Customer Project managemettt

Design al~d systems

Loft Aerodynamics

Propulsion Weights Strtlct ure~

Give approval at design review. Change configuration collcept, revise design par~lueters, do design review. Update general arrangement, update inhoard profile, find wetted areas and area distribution, functional systenl8 considerations (1} flight controls (2) fuel (3} hydraulic (4) electrical (5) avionics (6) environmental control (6) weapons. (Use0 CADAM support tool). (May use Asset support tool). Produce updated baseline drawings, genera/ arrangements, inboard profile, Determine (1) eppennage scaling data (2) drag data (3) low speed lift data (4} control surface sizes. {U~es aerodynamic programst Determine (1) parametric installed engine, performance data versus (a) overall pressure ratio (b) bypass ratio (el turbine entry temperature (2) Loom flow field col~ditions (3) inlet and exhaust nozzle performance data (4) Scaling data (5) Installed engine weigh data (6) Performance and weight scaling 7} Initial structural temperatures. (Uses propulsion programs}. Determine (11 component weight relationship~ (21 payload and operating equipnmnt weights (3) effects of configuration peculiar items (4) C.G. location and limits (5) F~el volume relationships. (use mass distrihutio~ tool} Define structural design criteria. Perform trade-off studies to define (1) basic structural concepts (21 material usage, Provide effects on asset weight equation~ due to ( ~ structurM technology (b) structural arrangements (c) structural design requirements, Provide parametric basic loads. Participate in design evaluation Preliminary aeroielastic assessment. (use loads programs, detailed load~ programs and aeroelastic program)

Loft ~-dyx~aanics

Ae~omechanics

Propulsion

Materials and producibility Model specifications Laboratories Engineering shop Plight test Other disciphnes

Fig. 5. Step 1: Initial design parameters.

Weights

require specification of fasteners for stress calculations at a nondetailed level.

-S~t.:t u r ~

4.4.7

Sizing replaces a center line specification by a volume geometry. This may at first exist as a width and height specification only, and then an exact cross-sectional geometry. After this, modifications such as lightening holes may be added. Some elements may have a simplified representation at the initial level, and thus the model is refined by enhancing them. An example, in the design area, is of adding the cockpit elements such as seats and console. There may be intermediate refinements, such as specifying the angle of inclination of the back of the seat, and the pilot's viewing window.

Sizing of parts for structural models.

Aeromechanics

4.4.8 Addition of elements.

~aTerials and producibility Model specifications Laboratories -E'~l~gin i ug shop ear Flight test Other disciplines

Fig. 6. Step 2: Generate data/preliminary point design.

4. Detail point design studies. 5. Refine selected configuration. 6. Design and build prototype. Within each step, and for each goal, we indicate which of the many available computer support tools are used.

Organization of Design Using Committed Steps

The way the grouping of design departments is usually organized is related to the schedule steps in design. A step is defined as a set of design choices that must be committed to by a given time.

5.2

Commitment Steps

We summarize the above six steps in Fig. 14.

5.1

Steps in Advanced Aircraft Design 5.2.1 The concept of commitment step. As diagrammed in Fig. 15, the notion of commitment step is that a set of joint commitments is made by all the design agents at the end of each step. These are public commitments to best estimates for decision choices. These estimates are then used by all agents during the next step.

We show, in Figs. 5-13, an organization into six steps sometimes used in aircraft design. These steps are: 1. Initial design parameters. 2. Generate data/preliminary point design. 3. Parametric and trade-off analysis.

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

125

Customer Pro~ect management Design and systems

Determine trAde-off m~trlx, Do d~ign evMnation, Study powei plant si/ee, wing ~nd eppeltage size, fllselAgc size, basic alrfrKtlle geometry. controls ~ld avionics, (m~y use CADAM). M~y do Asset stndy (Asset tool}. Study ms,ueuvr ability, acceleration, ~ate of climb. ceiling, off-design mission c~pahility, range/fuel consumption, optimum thrust to weight (T/W} raticx (use aerodynamic programs). Study engine cycle and size. lift engine size. (use propnlsion programs ), Study gross weight, empty weight, structural weight, system~ and subsystems weight. propulsiotl weight, fuel volume avail~ble, filel reqairt.~d, eff~mts of advanced technology. effects of configuration changes, maximum take-off weight, (use mass distribution program). Determine strlt(:tura], conlponent/nlatt~ri~l nlatrix. Pxovide parametric basic loads. P~rtieipeAe in desig*~ evaluation, Parametric ~erolastic assessment. (use detailed loads programs and aer(mlasticity l)rograul) Study eltghteering cost~ Study acquisition of (I) production m~terial ~ut labor. (2) tooling, (3) spares Study operatioual e~ts: ( i ) maintenance, (2) replenish spares. (3) fl~el and oil. and (41 pay and allowances, Produce estilll~.h~ of total system cost.

Customer Project management Design and systems

Loft erod--~y namics A

Proptflsiou Weights

Structures Aeromechanies MatetiMs end producibility

Loft Aerodyll~mic~

Model specifications L~bor atories Engineering shop Flight test Other disciplines

Propnl~km Acoustics - side lim~ noise. flyover noise, ~lt(t footprint noise.

Fig. 7. Step 3: Parametric and trade-off analysis.

5.2.2 Estimates and decisions must form an adequate sequence. Each step produces estimated results within intervals that are sufficient to allow every agent in the following step to achieve its goals, viz., estimated results within the accuracy or interval required for the end of the next step. Thus, for agents a, b, c, and d, if after step i they have produced results in intervals I a, lib, IF, and I~, and if they have private results U/, P~, PT, and P/~, then P~, and {I~, 17, and I f} as input for agent a should be sufficient to allow the computation of PT+~ and P~d~, and P~ b and {I i, I~, and I d} as input for agent b should be sufficient to allow the computation of P~+~ and I)+ ~, and so on. 5.2.3 The public estimated results are the context for design action. The public estimated results, at the end of step i, are the context for design action in step i + 1. I a} I/} and P?} --->P~+ i and I~+1 IF}

Weights

Give approval at end of st(~p. Select detail point designs. desigtl review, and revise design parametel's, From configuration design, genera,re preliminary coueepts. i.e.. general arrangements and inhoard prldiles, Update genera/ arrangements and inboard profiles. consider configuration pe~:uliar items (e.g., r~dar, weapons, p~yload). dl~t~Illlilte wetted areas, and area,R di.~tributi(m. Make layouts for (1) flight controls sy~tent (2) powerldant instMlation (3) ~tructural arr~,ngenlent (4) t~l~ding Rear (5) crew station (6) fuel system (71 hydraulic system (8) electrical system (91 avionics system (t0) r111viroltlnent~l (xmtrd system (111 weapons system (12) miscellaneous equipment (13) nlec] (uses CADAM). Produce ilpdated concept drawings. inehldiItg general arraltgenmnts. inlmard profiles, ~nd layouts, Develop loft surface. (uses CADAM). Determine (1) drag lnfiht up (2) matmuvcr envelope V-N die,gram (3l control surfa,:c size (4) primary mission performance ~nalysis {5) airport performance (6) flight envelope {7) (8) C,G. range, loadahility 19) preliminary failure amdysis. (us~s aerodyumnic progrexms Kiid transmdc ~nalysi~}, II~,fine (1) engine selection (2) insttdled perfi~rnt~nce data (3) inh~t and nozzle size and iustMl~tioll configur~th)I~. Determim~: (l) Fm~l system sizing requirements (2) Initial auxiliary system requlrenltmts alld defiaition. l~(dhle structural telnl)eraturcs. Duternlhle transient telllper~turtr ~ud histories (ff structurM COlll])ont!lltS. (Uses propulsion progi}uns and detailed propulsion progr~uns}. Determine (1) group weight statel,t~nt (2) prclimlnary ma~ss distribution ~tltd lllolllellt of iaertia data I3) C.G, travel analysis. Do tr~tde-off studies, effects ~f advanced techtvdr~gy on (1) materials (2) type of constructioll ( 3 ) active cont rols (4} propulsion, tUse~ ma-4s distribution progr~nl).

]Fig. 8. Step 4: Detail point design studies, part 1.

Example: approx layout} control surface size} engine weight and size} payload and c.g. limits} basic structural concepts} --~ structural component/material matrix parametric basic loads}

1/}

5.2.4 There is a main overall pattern o f dependency. As shown in Fig. 16, there is an overall

126

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

Structures

Aerollmcll&llics

MMeri;ds ~,nd pmdtlcibility

Model spel;ificat ilnls

Expand and refine trade-off studies to define ( 1 ) detail struct ur~l design concepts (2) materiM usage (3) design/m~uuf~cturi~g p~rameters. Generate basic struetllral arraugements. Perform analysis to size basic strm;tural eleme~lts: (1) internal loads distribntkm altalysi,~ (2) Stress analysis for strellgth altd stiffness (31 fatigue and fracture anMy~is for durability and damage tolerance (4) thermal stress ~malysis (5) sonic fatigue analysis. Provide imdhuinary hea~ic loads Determine stiffness data for a~troeleastic anMyses. Colldllct structural concept tests, (Uses NASTRAN and FAMAS}, Provide (1) aerodastic stability derivatives (2} flutter analysis (31 aeroela.stic evMuatiml o{ perfotnt~uce requiremeuts (4} acoustic ellvirOlllllent (51 loeala ~u~d criteri~ report (6) eugim~ k~4ds analysis (7) landing g~ar toaxls {it design {it} fatigue. I~xpaml and refine trade-off studies (1l effects o{ C,G travel (2) detail structurM design load.~ trite!fla. (Uses detailed loads p~ogralllS, aero,,Iastic p~ogl~lll and detailed aerolttechanics prograuts), Select (1) materiMs and processes (2) parts alld equipnmnt. Refine lIlallllf~ctllrillg breakd,,wn, Provide producibility design support, Perforlll cost trade-off studies. Deterlnim~ lift: cycle costs. hlelztify test requiremeuts, M~ke smoothness drawings. Deterlnim~ (1) configuratiou parameters (2) Lockheed design requirements (3) Perfor malice p~rameters.

Pl'oject 111 gll~g(:ll1811 t ~ systems

Giwt Approval at eud of step, Maintain solected configuration, do design Ieviews, revist~ desigll p~ttallmters. (1 ) general arrangements (2) in I~ard profile (3) cmtfig~ratiomd peculi~sr itenl~. Make detailed layouts for (1) wimt tunnel modeL~ (2) mock-ups ~nd colllpollellt testing. Detailed layouts: (I) flight control system (2) power plant installation (3) structural arr~ngenlex~t (4) Ianding gear (5) crew station 16) fuel system (7) hydraulic system (8) electrical system (9) avionics systems {10} ellvironmelltal colltrol systell~ (II I weapons system (I21 miscella~mous equipmtmt (131 umehal~isms. ( ~)se~ CADAM). Produce updated drawings. Provide loft contours for mock-ups, wimbtuunel lnodds and COlllpOllell~ testing. (nses CADAM and CALAC()}. Define and direct willd-tllnuld test program. Flight COlttrol systellt - priamtry and ~XlltOltl&tlc. Upd~tte dr~g build-up per Willd-ttlUlie[ results. Prepare stability aml COlttrol reports, Control surface sizillg, update pet wimt-tunnel results. Prepare perfornlau,:e rel,o~.t,~. Airport perfurnlance. UlldMe per wlnd-tunnel results. Rx~fin,' flight envet~pe t~llff~!t bonndark~s. Fdm,ct of .qtorl~s, IIpd~t~, p0r wiltd-tllllllel rt~llltS. Flight simulations, ~xm~p~tter~nd piloted. D,~v,,l,p gn~r~nte,,s. l~efi~e fitih~re analysis. {U~es aerodynamic programs. trensonk: a~mIysis program and ADAIS}. D~tine ~nd l:o~ld~tctwilld-ttlltm:I, te~t, Prepare, ~llgil/c perftlrmcmce reports. FiltMize iulet, llO~Z1callt[ lteu:elle locatiou. Update ixtst~dlatiou Iossos per wind-tnnuel resMts. Engine coutrol-systeln lllodld8~ Thrust lllallagelnelit ,qystl~iii. FinMize auxiliary systems rt~qllitelltellts aml definitiolt: (1) envi~mlnlentM (2) antidcing (3) auxiliary power 14) engilm st4~rtlug (5) w~uts and draius (6) tlmlst reverse. D,,tail structnral tellllmr&ttlteS ~.lld temperature gradients. (Uses propulsion progr~mls l, 2 and 3}.

Loft

Aerodytt~tmit s

Lal)oratories I Engim!eri~g shop Flight test Othm" discilllilms

Pmpul~ion Techifical discipline evMluttiml (I) military systems - inission pt?rfl)rlttance (2) human f~ctors (3) reliability (4) vnlnerMfility.

Fig. 9. Step 4: Detail point design studies, part 2.

dependency pattern, which is more or tess repeated in each step.

Fig. 10. Step 5: Refine selected configuration, part 1.

Higher-Level Negotiation

The elaboration of the design by negotiation of specialists is preceded by and constrained by negotiations that occur at a higher level of abstraction, and of organizational management. These decisions determine choices which control the overall decisions on the aircraft and also the means by which the rest of the design is carried out. Negotiations are carried out not only within one organization, but also among teaming partners. Decisions have to be made concerning: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Who will do what. What is required. Systems. Communication. What kinds of data and its format. Security in data movement. Set up procedures.

In the context of a long-standing cooperative relationship, the aim of negotiation is to find a win-win compromise with which all partners are comfortable. This is particularly true within the same organization, or among suborganizations within one organization.

6.1 High-Level Engineering Decisions

An example of this is the choice of materials to be used in each part of the aircraft. In the case of the major redesign of the P3 to produce the P7, each part of the aircraft was examined to determine the material to be used. There were a large number of parts analyzed and decisions were usually among composites, aluminum and high strength aluminum. These choices were made by examining state-ofthe-art manufacturing costs and also the available possibilities for composites. High strength aluminum allows one to reduce the skin gauge, giving less

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

127

Weights

St r tt(;tures

Aerolnechatdcs

Model specifications

Lahoratories

Engineering shop Flight test Other disciplines

Detail estimated weight aad balance report. Define specification weight with customer/marketing. Evaluate c~st/weight trade-off studies. Mass distribution per final I:oufigut~tion including variations ill: (1) fncl (2) 1,ayh~ad (3) distribution for critical loading. Fuel ~e~SllS~ttitude. (Uses mass distrihution program slit] fuel inertia i)rogram). Colltillll(} trade~offs to define: (1) detail structural design concepts (2) triateriMs usage (3} producibility methods. Oellerate. detail structural arrangeluen{s. Expand and refine stHictural element sizhlg anMysis ( 1} internal loads {2) streagtI~ and stiffne~ (3) durability and d~mage tolerance (4) thermM stress (5) sonic fatigue. Refine stiffness data {(>r aeroelastic analysis. Colltilltle structurM tests. Plan fo* prototype devetopme~t analysis t~lld tests. (Uses FAMAS and NASTRAN). Refine ( t ) aer(~dastic stM)ility derivatives (2) basic loads (3) flutter analysis (4) aemelastic pe.r~ormante analysis (5) aconstic el~vironlllent {6) loads and criteria report (7) aertmlastic optimization (8) engine loads analysis (9) wind-tuunel test program for loads. EstaMish structurM design lo~uls criteria. Define alld Collduct low-speed wind-tullnel flutter model progranl. (Uses detailed loads programs, detailed aerolllechanics programs ~nd airframe/ground interaction i)rogr~lu). Refine ( i ) materials and process selection {2) parts and eqlliplllellt selection. Continue (l) produeibility design support {2) cost trade:off studies. Prepare ( i ) customer desigu requiremen ts (2) Lockheed design requirements f3) ellstolller peculiar COllfigllr&tioll requirel/tel/ts (4) performance guarantees (5) weight guarantees. Build COl.ponellt test rigs per eltgineering requirenmnts. Conduct Ct)ltlpOltent tests. Design and huiM flutter models. Do flutter model tests, Design a.lld build wind-tunnel nlodels. Do willd-tullne] tests, Build mock-upsper engineeriag requirelnents. Tech nicM"discip lin e s analysis (i) military systems- mission per[ornlance (2) human factors (3) ~eliahility (4) wflnerability (5) survivability

Cnstolner Project lll~lti~elltent

Dcsigu ~utd syst(~lns

Loft Aerodynamics

Propulsi<m

Weights

Strll(:ttl~es

Fig. 11. Step 5: Refine selected configuration,part 2.

Give approval and acceptance, Prep&re proposal, do (:llStOnl(~r review ~iid Lontl'~ct @WP*I(I. Finalize design requircnmnts. Determine lllodifi{:atiolls required. EvahllitiOll of r~qllirelnoltts. PinMize: t l ) gellt:/~ glrsugellletlt~ (2) inboard profile (3) coufiguration imcnliar items. Colttplete and rdease prototype drawings: (I) flight control system (2) power plant iltstMlation (3 } strui:turM arra41gements (41 I~nding gear (5) crew station (6) tirol system (7) hyd~mlic system (8) electrical system (9) avionics system (10) euvirollnmllta| col~trol system (II) weapons system {12) iniscellaneous equipment f 13) ~mmfianisms. Produce prototype drawings. (Uses CADAM), Provide loft COllt0Rrs to desigll and nlanllfacturing, (Uses CADAM and CALACO), In-depth fi~udti~ig qualities report. Assist in planning flight-test program: (1) evaluate results (2) correlate wittl predictions. Finalize (aft design capMfilities. Finalize failure ana|ysis. In-depth perforlnance rel)Oi-t, Integrate siUllllat(}r witfi prototypi!. {Us(~ aerodynantic programs, tr~l~soI~ic anMysis progI~n~ ~tnd ADAIS). R.efilm per~orlna~lce estinlat*~s based on flight test results. Parti(:ipate in and monitor flight-test progr~nl. Prepare: tepor*s for customer data requircnleats. Monitor and coordinate changes with ellgiltt~Ilt&nllf~Ctllr~l, Monitor ~uxili~ry systmn p(~rfi~rllla.llce. (Uses propu|si<m progr~nls 1.2. 3 and 4}. Cab ulated weigi'lt~--]7~uli ' ; ~ e report Weigh first aircraft Actual weight alld halaJice report - first aareraft Int(11"llal and (:llStOltler status reports VCeight and bManee hamlbor~k R>r fl{ght test C~lcnbtt~ static llalalice and lnomc~llt ()f inertia of control surfa~a.~s Meas~li(, static IiManec and nlonlellt )f inertia of control ~urt'aces Mmlitor designs to t~rget weights [Uses Ma*ter weight aml fuel inertia) Fimdize structnrM design concepts FinMiz. materials usage criteria Fiualize detail amdysis fi~r sttllctural sizing ( I ) interuai Io~ds {2} strength and stiffness (3) durahillty and damage tolerance (4) thermal stress (5) sonic {~tigue Fi}~alize stiffness data for aerolastic analysis ColltillllO structural tests Prepare data h~r g~)vernment aald (:nstomer specs: (1) stress ~naiysis (2) test eva,luatio~s (3) final reports Provide manufactaring liaisml Provide flight test liaison (Uses FAMAS aitd NASTRAN)

Fig. 12. Step 6: Design and build prototype, part 1. aluminum in the wing; I0% stronger material may save 8% weight. These higher-level engineering decisions are to some extent negotiable later; however, renegotiation is costly and difficult, and is thus discouraged. The material decision thus can be regarded as a goal to be attained. In the elaboration of the design, some goals will be attained, and some will fail to be exactly achieved. The project is then managed so that parts of the design which overachieve compensate for those that underachieve. The attainability of these design constraints produces vertical conflicts and renegotiation among levels of the organization, and it can produce contractual conflicts among different organizations.

6.2 High-Level Information Handling Decisions

In addition to engineering decisions, decisions are made on how the project will be organized. A major class of decisions concern information handling. This includes the following: Choice of CAD system. Who will use what systems, usually trying to minimize the number of different CAD systems. Within one choice (e.g., CADAM), there is the choice of version or versions to use. There is a need to transfer data, and to ensure that this can be done. Where necessary, bridges may have to be built, and which bridges are built and who will code them has to be negotiated.

128

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

Aetomechalti(;s

Material~ ~utd Im~ducibility

Model specifications

LMmratories

El~ghtecring shop Flight test

Other disdptilms

Finalize: (1) aerolastic stability derivatives (2) aerolastic pm'formance (3) Imsic loaxls {41 Flutter analysis (5) Acoustic tzeatment (6) Eltgine loads analysis (7) Landing gear analysis Define: (1) Flight test pt'ogram for loads validation (2) Ground and flight test programs for flutter substantiation In-depth lomls aild criteria report Aerolo.stic optin~ization Define and condtlct high speed Willd-tllllltd flllttet ntodel program Flight test lialsol~ (Uses detailed loads programs detailed aeromechauics programs and alrframe/ground interatction prograln) Fiualiae materials and pro(:e~s selection Finalize parts amt eqtliplnellt selection Specitications amt standards Colllll/on a]it y studies: (1) forgings and extrusions {21 parts, equipln(mt. (:olltpone~tts Identify long lead items Desigl~ to cost l)rogtam inl plemellt ation Finalize: (I } cllstomer design requirements {2) Lockheed design requirenlents (3) custonmr ptmuliar requirements {41 perf)r~l~ll(x? gu~r~iltees {5} weight g~ta~'~ttees Contiltue wind-tllnnel teats of prototype configuration COlltilltl(! conlpollent tests of prototype ~:oufiguratimi phul ~lld exe(tltte static: tests of prototype Vchlclc systems simulator Plight simM~to:s C(Jll~lllu(~ lq,utter inodel tests R evi~e mock-ups to protntype configuratiolt Plan flight test program Nxt]cit~t~tiight te~t program per ellginec~riltga.n(t (:llg~Olll(ir reqll Jrt~lllt~ntN TechuicM dis:iplines finalize reconllnelId~tions all~t reports (1) lllilitary systellls - inissioll I)er[orln&Itce (2) human factors {3) reliability 14) vuhmrabilit y t5) survivabi(ity (6) nlaint ainability Mallufacturiug buihts prototype (Usi~ig CADAM}

Fig. 13. Step 6: Design and build prototype, part 2.

tremely complex. Whereas for sheet metal, a wing section would require about 10-15 details in a drawing, for composites it requires perhaps as many as a hundred details per drawing. There is the basic plan view of the wing, but then many sections showing the ply structure to be used. This information has to be used by manufacturing in making the wing but also by engineering in doing stress analyses. The plys in each section fall into plysets, which are in a certain spatial order. The drawing specification was first negotiated between the designers and manufacturing and a set of ply tables was added to the drawing. These gave the ply/ID, the material code and the angle of the ply to a reference axis. These ply tables were used by manufacturing to layout and cut ptys. However, this data form did not allow engineering to create a model for stress analysis without a lot of extra work. What was negotiated was a drawing specification change in which the plysets were added to all cross-sections of drawings and details, together with the plyset order. From this data form, the manufacturing ply tables could be then created. Since creating both types of data was extremely time consuming, a software tool was specified to build the manufacturing ply tables automatically. This tool was budgeted and scheduled to take 3 months to implement and test. During the transition period, the designers would generate both types of tables. The payoffs were that engineering saved a lot of work and minimized the possibility for transcription and transformation error, manufacturing still got what they needed, and designers eventually saved some time in generating section ply tables which were more natural for them to determine.

Computer links. For transferring data, tapes or TP lines, and, if so, how big? Who will control the movement of data, which computer managers? Security. Accountability in moving data, documentation to be generated, who will sign, where records will be kept, the security organization responsibility. The design is optimized to the limits of the tools that are chosen. 6.2.1 Example. A recent example of information handling negotiation, which occurred between Lockheed Burbank (where the product was being designed and engineered) and Lockheed Georgia (where the product was being manufactured), concerned what specification was to be used for drawings of composite wings. These drawings are ex-

Summary and Conclusion

7.1

Summary

We described how aircraft are designed in a large organization. We discussed the different phases of design and interaction with the customer. We then described the models used by each specialist department and the interactions among departments during the design process. We observed that the main design choices are refinement operations on the design, and we discussed refinement. We then described how the negotiation process is controlled by an organizationally agreed sequence of commitment steps. We then described negotiation at higher levels in the organization. What decisions are made, the

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

129

DESIGN AND SYSTEMS

STEP 1 INITIAL DESIGN PARA METERS baseline drawings inboard profile

STEP 2 PRELIMINARY P O I N T ANALYSIS general arraugenlents update i l t b ~ r d profile ftlnctiOllal system considerations

STEP 3 PARAMETER ESTIMATI()N TRADE-OFFS updated layouts

STEP 4 DETAIL POINT STUDIES updated layouts flmctional systems layouts develop loft surface control surface sizes drag build-up c,g, remge, loadability refine engine selection inlet m~d nozzle size fuel system sizing structural temperatures preliminary in~ss distribution moment of inertia data c,g. travel analysis

STEP 5 REFINE SELECTED CONFIGURATION detailed layouts

STEP 6 BUILD PROTOTYPE finalize prototype drawings loft cnntours for manufacturing indepth handling qualities report refine estimates based on flight test results calculated weight end balance repot~ weigh first aircraft, finalize detail structural sizing

LOFT AERODYNAMICS wing p~.r~mett;rs thrust/weight ratio rmage of cycle paranlcters insta/lation criteria approxilnat e weight, e.g. I drag data control surface sizes perforlnallce data weight tenlper~tures maaoeuveral~ility range/fuel optimum thn~st/weight ratio study engine cycle altd size

PROPULSION

WEIGHTS

STRUCTURES

load l)adts desigu parmm:tcrs

payload and olmratillg equipnmut e.g, limits fuel~volmne r(~ati(mships define structural design exiteria basic stru(:tllral e(nH~}ts provide parametric 1)a~sicloads prelitninary aerolastic itSSt?SfiItI( 1t '1

structural weight subsystems weight propulsion weight fiml-volmue define structural COml)Oneat/ nlateri~l lllatrix

refine trade-off aa,mIysis h~sic structural gr~,llgelllel~ts size llasie strtl<tural elenleilts d~tetllilg~ stlffll(~ss data aerolastic stability engine loads analysis effects of c.g.travel

AEROMECHANICS

provide criteria guidelines

pa4rglnet ric basic loads l)aranletrh: aerol~stic assesmltent study ax:quisition of l)r~duction labor and tools (~Stilllat(! t/)t~4[ sygtelll cost

MATERIALS AND PRODUCIBILITY

MODELS LABORATORIES

select materials mid mid 1 cost trade-off studies pr,)ducibility report de,termitt e par~ltleters

loft eolltours for testing define and and direct wind tunnel test define mid col~duct wind tmmd tests finalize inlet, nozzle and nacell location temperature gradients detail estimated weight specification ot' weight with customer detailed arrangements internal loads refine structural element sizing refine stiffness data refine aerol~.stie per for mi'aiee analysis define aa~d Colldm:t wind tunnd flutter model program ret~lle illateri~,18 gild process selection

finalize catalysis engine loads lauding gear acoustics finalize ~lity shldies

SHOP FLIGHT OTHER acoustics flyover noise military mission humaz~ fact~rs reliability

prepare design requirelllents design eatd build wind tullnel lllodels do wind tmmei tests b~li|d mock-ups

finalize eoltthltle tests revise mock-ups plan mid execute flight test E finalize dations

t military mission human factors reliability

Fig. 14.

Summary

of six steps.

compromises worked out, and the effect of these higher-level commitments on the design process.

7.2
step 1

Conclusions

i
agent 1

joint commitments

step 2

I
agent 1

joint c o m m i t m e n t s

step 3

joint c o m m i t m e n t s

Fig.

15.

The

concept

of commitment

step.

1. Aircraft design proceeds by the cooperation of specialists (specialist teams or departments). 2. Each specialist has its own model of the design, and may use several different models or partial models for different purposes. 3. Specialists have limited ability to understand each other's models. They communicate using a shared vocabulary, but not necessarily shared technical knowledge. 4. Design proceeds by successive refinement of the models, which are coordinated and updated together. 5. The design decisions, which are acts of commitment and model refinement, are negotiated by the specialists among themselves. 6. One way this negotiation process is organized and controlled is by the use of commitment steps.

130

Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

DesignCriteria (proposal)
+

i
DESIGN

Propulsion
+

Aerodynamics characteristics

AERO
WEIGHTS

" ~ ~

DESIGN ~ LOADS q~
~""

f'a~ STRESS

DESIGN ~--|--im--

STRESS

................................................

Fig. 16, The main overall pattern of dependency.

7. Negotiation occurs at higher levels in the organization, resulting in commitments which greatly influence and constrain the design process and its organization, and which have the greatest effect on the cost of the product.

eral. The UCLA Manufacturing Engineering Program is supported by gifts and grants from many corporations, and by the Institute for Manufacturing and Automation Research.

References
l, Duvvuru Sriram, Robert D. Logcher, and Shuichi Fukuda. Proceedings of the MIT-JSME Workshop on Cooperative Product Development, 1989. Held at MIT, November 20--21, 1989. 2. Alan H. Bond. The cooperation of experts in engineering design. In Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Volume H, pages 463-484, 1989.

Acknowledgments. We would like to thank Dave Cannon, Bill

Thompson, and Dave Richardson of Lockheed Aircraft Company, Bm'bank, California, for discussions on wing-section design, and on collaboration in manufacturing organizations in gen-